Re: [Leica] Vegetable vs. Chicken Noodle

["Dan S" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

Mike, I have owned ALL of the lenses you have listed below except the 
Olympus.  Not to put too fine a point on it but if you can't tell the 
difference between the Nikon f1.8 or that Pentax and the Summicron, 
particularly between full aperture and f4.0, you need to have your 
prescription adjusted.:)

I found the Nikon f1.8 and the older f2.0 to be of very low contrast at 
apertures wider thatn f4.0, with tons of flare on the 1.8, and VERY 
noticable vignetting on the old f2.0.

The Pentax WAS sharp, but with some of the lowest contrast images I have 
obtained from any 50.

What kind of film do you use?  I can imagine not seeing the difference on 
400 Tri-x or faster stuff, but from 100 speed down I can't believe you don't 
find the Summicron better ( as has nearly every lens tester in existence; 
check the full aperture figures for these lenses at photodo).


Actually I commend you for your honesty of opinion.

Perhaps the inflated used prices of Leica products would come down if all 
the folks who can't see the difference would stop purchasing them (I suspect 
that even on the LUG this is a prettly large group)...Then I could afford 
that 24 asph.

Best Wishes
Dan States







>
> >>>>
>The really sad
>news is that the 50 f1.8 AF Nikkor (cost: $85 new at B&H) knocks all
>those
>zooms off their perches, and in fact it holds its own quite surprisingly
>
>against my current-generation 50 Summicron-M even at f2, although I
>suspect
>the Nikkor will be landfill decades before the Summicron needs a
>re-lube.
><<<<
>
>I agree with this...this lens is distinctly sharper than the Summicron
>in pictures.
>
>So many Leica photographers seem to think that no other company in the
>world can build a lens, that only Leica can. That Leica must be first
>and everyone else ranked in some order after that. Mere bigotry! <s>
>
>Every lens line has high points and low points; most lenses have
>strengths and weaknesses. What is needed is not a blanket assertion of
>"superiority" but a more subtle understanding of what one's lenses can
>and cannot do well. This leads to appreciation.
>
>All major lensmakers make at least a few great lenses. Some surpass the
>equivalent lenses from Leica. Some merely have different qualities that,
>if we appreciated the distinctions, we might prefer--or might not.
>Often, by far the major advantage Leica has is simply that people will
>pay more for its products, so the designer has more money to work with.
>Of course half of this advantage is eaten away in production
>inefficiencies and inefficiencies of scale; but it is a very substantial
>advantage. If Canon or Minolta could charge $1,000 for a medium-speed
>fixed normal, do you believe they couldn't come up with superlatively
>fine lenses?
>
>Olympus makes a 50mm f/2 macro that blows the Summicron-M out of the
>water; and one of the best 50mm lenses I have ever used is the f/1.4
>Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar M42 screwmount lens for the Spotmatic.
>A wonderful lens. You can purchase it used for $79. When I give people a
>stack of prints made with various 50mms and ask them to pick out the
>Summicron shots, typically most of the shots they pick were taken with
>the Takumar.
>
>Is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 "better" than the Summicron? Is Campbells'
>Chicken Noodle soup better than Campbell's Alphabet Vegetable soup? A
>deep philosophical question! <g>
>
>--Mike
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com